Look I know how version numbers work. I write programs and do IT for a company in Painted Post, NY, but they call themselves the Corning office. Why? Because it looks better, Corning is a recognized name.
Think of your clients who play the game, children. You will save less time by changing the number to either 2.0 or version 10 without the 1. in front.
You can stick to your guns, wasting everybody's time, or nip this right now and go all out and go BAM 2.0 release! 2.0 looks better on packaging. 2.0 hits the ear better than 1.10. Numerically it makes sense. You don't have to rewrite the code, and if this was the reason for 2.0, 1.8 should have been called 2.0.
Do the socially acceptable thing for once, please. Being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride just makes people upset at you.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
North Texas
Join Date:
2/29/2012
Posts:
51
Minecraft:
KingCJ
PSN:
EL1T3GUARD
Member Details
I think I'd like 1.10 better. It makes more sense too. 2.0 would be more for games with actually stories and some different content from previous games.
Look I know how version numbers work. I write programs and do IT for a company in Painted Post, NY, but they call themselves the Corning office. Why? Because it looks better, Corning is a recognized name.
Think of your clients who play the game, children. You will save less time by changing the number to either 2.0 or version 10 without the 1. in front.
You can stick to your guns, wasting everybody's time, or nip this right now and go all out and go BAM 2.0 release! 2.0 looks better on packaging. 2.0 hits the ear better than 1.10. Numerically it makes sense. You don't have to rewrite the code, and if this was the reason for 2.0, 1.8 should have been called 2.0.
Do the socially acceptable thing for once, please. Being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride just makes people upset at you.
Nobody is upset that it will be 1.10 instead of 2.0 but you. From my experience, whenever people talk about 2.0 coming next, they're quickly correced and they just say "Oh, okay, cool".
You're just trying to promote false advertising because it makes you feel all fuzzy inside knowing you supported the 'socially acceptable' solution.
... Wait. Socially acceptable!? Really? You act like naming it 1.10 would be a crime would be a crime against humanity. Honestly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Gamelord. Pixelmon Server Owner. Server IP: pixelmonprisma.mc-server.net | Server Discord:https://discord.gg/HkK855b
Look I know how version numbers work. I write programs and do IT for a company in Painted Post, NY, but they call themselves the Corning office. Why? Because it looks better, Corning is a recognized name. A bit irrelevant, but I see the point you're trying to make.
Think of your clients who play the game, children. You will save less time by changing the number to either 2.0 or version 10 without the 1. in front. Because children who are old enough to play Minecraft can't count to 10.
You can stick to your guns, wasting everybody's time, or nip this right now and go all out and go BAM 2.0 release! 2.0 looks better on packaging. 2.0 hits the ear better than 1.10. Numerically it makes sense. You don't have to rewrite the code, and if this was the reason for 2.0, 1.8 should have been called 2.0. Yeah, on "numerically it makes sense": Update numbers don't work the same way as decimals in mathematics
Do the socially acceptable thing for once, please. Being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride just makes people upset at you. This thread is becoming more of a rant. Are we such terrible people for supporting a little number difference?
Responses in bold. It's really not too much trouble to say "1.10", is it? Besides, 2.0 would only be an applicable name if the upcoming update was a a sequel (which we pray will never exist) or a massive overhaul to the game. We can't be sure if the 1.10 update will be big enough for the title you suggest, but making the update "2.0" regardless of knowledge of upcoming features is just assuming too much.
You can stick to your guns, wasting everybody's time, or nip this right now and go all out and go BAM 2.0 release! 2.0 looks better on packaging. 2.0 hits the ear better than 1.10.
And yet, this is also why they don't do it this way.
2.0 is overall "better" because people expect it to be. In this case though, renaming a generic 1.10 update to 2.0 would just leave everyone disappointed; "Is this supposed to be 2.0? It's not any bigger than the other updates!"
I mean, Notch literally stated everywhere back during the Alpha to Beta transition that it wouldn't be a huge deal, and had the community been larger I bet there'd been the same size of uproar as the 1.9 combat changes had.
If players heard about 2.0, they would expect more than if it was called 1.10, which would just disappoint people.
Look I know how version numbers work. I write programs and do IT for a company in Painted Post, NY, but they call themselves the Corning office. Why? Because it looks better, Corning is a recognized name.
Think of your clients who play the game, children. You will save less time by changing the number to either 2.0 or version 10 without the 1. in front.
You can stick to your guns, wasting everybody's time, or nip this right now and go all out and go BAM 2.0 release! 2.0 looks better on packaging. 2.0 hits the ear better than 1.10. Numerically it makes sense. You don't have to rewrite the code, and if this was the reason for 2.0, 1.8 should have been called 2.0.
Do the socially acceptable thing for once, please. Being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride just makes people upset at you.
You say you know how version numbers work, but then say that calling it 1.10 would be "being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride". This leads me to wonder, do you know WHY version numbers work the way they do? We may use a "." in version numbers, and even say, "one point eight" and such, but it is NOT a decimal point. Version 1.8 is NOT "version one and eight tenths". Rather, it's "major version one, minor version eight" (or some semblance thereof). It doesn't really matter what makes sense numerically, as we're not talking about a decimal number but a software version identifier.
You mention 2.0 looking better on packaging. That may be so, but it would also be rather misleading to label it 2.0 if it's not a major overhaul of the game. Maybe they WILL overhaul the game after 1.9, and call it 2.0 as a result, but to call it that just because you don't want to have version 1.10 would be false advertising.
Finally, how is having minor version numbers greater than 9 socially unacceptable? Many software companies which have long-running product lines do so, and I don't see people getting upset at them. Why would people suddenly get upset at Mojang for it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most plans are critically flawed by their own logic. A failure at any step will ruin everything after it. That's just basic cause and effect. It's easy for a good plan to fall apart. Therefore, a plan that has no attachment to logic cannot be stopped. The success or failure of any given step will have no impact on the macro level."
-Red Mage, 8-Bit Theater
"90% of the Internet's statistics are made-up, and 7/8 of its quotes are misattributed."
-Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
Do the socially acceptable thing for once, please. Being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride just makes people upset at you.
And this is why I keep believing half of the threads here are just ruses. Pick a side of the fence and stick with it. You don't get both. Oh hey, didn't you make a thread about you hating negativity?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
So somehow renaming a update makes it faster...? Unless this is sarcasm...? I don't see how an extra character makes everything faster.
The release numbers go like this- major then minor then patch. In this case, Minecraft is still a major version of 1 but it has a minor version of 8 and a patch version of 9. Thus, 1.8.9. They would be lying if the "2.0" update was relatively small. A 2.0.0 would be a major update and if it was small, it isn't so major after all. Thus, 1.10.
If they ever do a 2.0, it would have to be a rewrite of the game and the addition of a lot of new content.
When do the amount of minor updates become a single major one?
People, please stay on-topic. This suggestion is for using 2.0 instead of 1.10 as the next version number after 1.9. It isn't for making jokes about version numbers.
There is no rule or law saying that 2.0 should represent a rewrite of the whole game or a big update.
This entire website explaining the concept behind semantic versions, along with this entire Wikipedia page would like to attest to that. 2.0 is literally representative of a major update, in more technical terms, when the update renders any derivative works that rely on the internal API and code-base such as plugins, addons, internal modular structures, and even the user's experience incompatible.
If Windows were to update, changing swaths of code internally rendering every single program for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and even 10 incompatible due to the fact that it moves away from Direct3D and uses a new renderer, or completely redesigns the internals of the OS to move away from an event-based system (I don't know why Microsoft would, but it could happen and hence I'm using it as an example), this makes the update worthy of an increment to the major version identifier. Likewise, if Mojang were to, say, rewrite the game under C++ and DirectX, rendering every single mod and even Mojang's own work completely incompatible and having to rewrite absolutely every single line of every single piece of derivative work again, that would be worthy of Minecraft 2.0. But Mojang won't do this because that'd be equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot and thinking they can still run a marathon afterwards, it'd effectively kill the game.
Getting back on topic, no support, the game uses the version structure it does now for several reasons. One of which being the ability to quickly get an idea of how big an update is. 1.2 -> 1.3 was a large update relative to say 1.6.2 -> 1.6.4. 1.9 -> 1.10 is not going to be anywhere near large enough to even consider jumping to 2.0. The second reason is industry standards and convention, using semantic versioning means everyone is on the same page and no confusion occurs. Everyone knows that 1.9 -> 1.10 isn't that big in the grand scheme of things, but 1.9 -> 2.0 would mean that players would assume it's a huge update simply for the gap between them, while developers know otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
This entire website explaining the concept behind semantic versions, along with this entire Wikipedia page would like to attest to that. 2.0 is literally representative of a major update, in more technical terms, when the update renders any derivative works that rely on the internal API and code-base such as plugins, addons, internal modular structures, and even the user's experience incompatible.
If Windows were to update, changing swaths of code internally rendering every single program for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and even 10 incompatible due to the fact that it moves away from Direct3D and uses a new renderer, or completely redesigns the internals of the OS to move away from an event-based system (I don't know why Microsoft would, but it could happen and hence I'm using it as an example), this makes the update worthy of an increment to the major version identifier. Likewise, if Mojang were to, say, rewrite the game under C++ and DirectX, rendering every single mod and even Mojang's own work completely incompatible and having to rewrite absolutely every single line of every single piece of derivative work again, that would be worthy of Minecraft 2.0. But Mojang won't do this because that'd be equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot and thinking they can still run a marathon afterwards, it'd effectively kill the game.
Getting back on topic, no support, the game uses the version structure it does now for several reasons. One of which being the ability to quickly get an idea of how big an update is. 1.2 -> 1.3 was a large update relative to say 1.6.2 -> 1.6.4. 1.9 -> 1.10 is not going to be anywhere near large enough to even consider jumping to 2.0. The second reason is industry standards and convention, using semantic versioning means everyone is on the same page and no confusion occurs. Everyone knows that 1.9 -> 1.10 isn't that big in the grand scheme of things, but 1.9 -> 2.0 would mean that players would assume it's a huge update simply for the gap between them, while developers know otherwise.
If you took all the "minor" changes from 1.2 all the way to 1.9 and rolled them up, would that be minor or major? There has been an overhaul to the code. Just look at the changelog. It's not even the same game anymore. I mean the core mechanics are still there but it has changed SO much, that I think it deserves the 2.0 moniker. 1.4 to 1.5 added redstone. 1.6 to 1.7 was so major it changed the landscape (The Update that Changed the World). 1.8 added so many blocks I am still learning some of them. 1.9 is changing combat so vastly, I am going to have to relearn how to fight. How is none of this major to anybody?
If you took all the "minor" changes from 1.2 all the way to 1.9 and rolled them up, would that be minor or major? There has been an overhaul to the code. Just look at the changelog. It's not even the same game anymore. I mean the core mechanics are still there but it has changed SO much, that I think it deserves the 2.0 moniker. 1.4 to 1.5 added redstone. 1.6 to 1.7 was so major it changed the landscape (The Update that Changed the World). 1.8 added so many blocks I am still learning some of them. 1.9 is changing combat so vastly, I am going to have to relearn how to fight. How is none of this major to anybody?
And maybe if we were in version 1.2 right now, rolling up 1.3 through 1.9 and releasing it might be worth 2.0. But that isn't what is happening. We're going from 1.8 to 1.9. Versions don't work like that, what is 'minor', what is 'major' and what is a complete overhaul depends on what the update has added and changed on its own. 1.9 is a major update. We know it is. That's why it is 1.9 instead of 1.8.10. 2.0 would be reserved for a complete rewrite of the game. It would have to be a completely different game when you go in.
I'm guessing the version numbers you are familiar with are different to the ones Minecraft are using. In the IT company that makes you oh so educated in this matter, I'm guessing you just count up your versions version 1, version 2, version 3 and so on. Games don't work like that. The jump between version 1 and version 2 is a jump between one game and another.
If you took all the "minor" changes from 1.2 all the way to 1.9 and rolled them up, would that be minor or major? There has been an overhaul to the code. Just look at the changelog. It's not even the same game anymore. I mean the core mechanics are still there but it has changed SO much, that I think it deserves the 2.0 moniker. 1.4 to 1.5 added redstone. 1.6 to 1.7 was so major it changed the landscape (The Update that Changed the World). 1.8 added so many blocks I am still learning some of them. 1.9 is changing combat so vastly, I am going to have to relearn how to fight. How is none of this major to anybody?
No, because versioning is relative to the two versions in question. 1.2 -> 1.3 is not viable of 1.0 -> 2.0 because nothing was changed that completely broke compatibility for absolutely everything, certain mods and certain lines of code were untouched by the update. 1.5 -> 1.6 was even less damaging as it only affected how mods deal with packaging their assets, 1.6 -> 1.7 and 1.7 -> 1.8 are the exact same. It's no use saying "if you took them, would be be minor or major" as Mojang didn't roll them up, and that's the thing. Working out whether the current update is worthy of a minor or major increment is relative to the two versions in question, not the whole product's lifetime. You don't just go "well, 1.4.0 saw us rewrite a large portion of the API, therefore 1.7.0 should be 2.0!" That makes absolutely no sense.
You're thinking gameplay when versioning is based around development. In terms of versioining, Mojang doesn't care if they reverse all the controls around so nobody knows how to play anymore, that's not a major update, that's a minor update as it doesn't even cause any incompatibilities. Gameplay doesn't matter with versions, to a point. If the entire product changed within a single update, then yes, but you yourself said that these changes occurred over time, so therefore they don't matter.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
No Support, Because 2.0 is a huge overhaul. 1.10 is just an normal update that fixes bugs. OFF-TOPIC:I would prefer naming the updates like 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.7.0, 1.8.0, 1.9.0 and 1.10.0.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I don't pay in emeralds. I pay in diamonds. - Me on server
If you took all the "minor" changes from 1.2 all the way to 1.9 and rolled them up, would that be minor or major? There has been an overhaul to the code. Just look at the changelog. It's not even the same game anymore. I mean the core mechanics are still there but it has changed SO much, that I think it deserves the 2.0 moniker.
Nope and nope.
I don't think I've ever seen any other user in the world go berzerk over a version number as much as you. "It's not even the same game anymore". Yes, yes it is. A ton of new stuff doesn't mean "diff3rent game!!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
I know I am going to receive hate for this but 2.0 actually makes sense compared to 1.10. if you have ever seen how decimal numbers work, 1.10 would be like saying 1.1. Why? Because the 0 on the end of the 1 just is adding another decimal place (100ths). It is not making a change, most people who know a thing or two about math might think it means 1.1. It's the same with version numbers. Most programs use 2.0 after 1.9. Minecraft is the first program I have ever seen that is going to use this, so it would make more sense just to use 2.0.
Dinnerbone has already said it would be 1.10. Also, I don't think the majority of players are children. Besides that, I think they are more concerned with the gameplay and not the version number.
I know I am going to receive hate for this but 2.0 actually makes sense compared to 1.10. if you have ever seen how decimal numbers work, 1.10 would be like saying 1.1. Why? Because the 0 on the end of the 1 just is adding another decimal place (100ths). It is not making a change, most people who know a thing or two about math might think it means 1.1. It's the same with version numbers. Most programs use 2.0 after 1.9. Minecraft is the first program I have ever seen that is going to use this, so it would make more sense just to use 2.0.
Support.
1 is the game number.
10 is the version number.
Numbers after 10 are bug fixes (I.E. 1.8.9)
It doesn't follow the rules of decimals because it isn't a decimal. Numbers with decimals only have one - yet you were okay with 1.8.9? And now 1.10 is too much for you? Please.
Edit: You are also very wrong about programs using 2.0 after 1.9. 2.0 is a new program, with all new coding. Think about Microsoft Word 2010, Microsoft 2013. New programs updates TO them are versions and bug fixes.
Look I know how version numbers work. I write programs and do IT for a company in Painted Post, NY, but they call themselves the Corning office. Why? Because it looks better, Corning is a recognized name.
Think of your clients who play the game, children. You will save less time by changing the number to either 2.0 or version 10 without the 1. in front.
You can stick to your guns, wasting everybody's time, or nip this right now and go all out and go BAM 2.0 release! 2.0 looks better on packaging. 2.0 hits the ear better than 1.10. Numerically it makes sense. You don't have to rewrite the code, and if this was the reason for 2.0, 1.8 should have been called 2.0.
Do the socially acceptable thing for once, please. Being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride just makes people upset at you.
I think I'd like 1.10 better. It makes more sense too. 2.0 would be more for games with actually stories and some different content from previous games.
No support.
Nobody is upset that it will be 1.10 instead of 2.0 but you. From my experience, whenever people talk about 2.0 coming next, they're quickly correced and they just say "Oh, okay, cool".
You're just trying to promote false advertising because it makes you feel all fuzzy inside knowing you supported the 'socially acceptable' solution.
... Wait. Socially acceptable!? Really? You act like naming it 1.10 would be a crime would be a crime against humanity. Honestly.
Responses in bold. It's really not too much trouble to say "1.10", is it? Besides, 2.0 would only be an applicable name if the upcoming update was a a sequel (which we pray will never exist) or a massive overhaul to the game. We can't be sure if the 1.10 update will be big enough for the title you suggest, but making the update "2.0" regardless of knowledge of upcoming features is just assuming too much.
No Support.
And yet, this is also why they don't do it this way.
2.0 is overall "better" because people expect it to be. In this case though, renaming a generic 1.10 update to 2.0 would just leave everyone disappointed; "Is this supposed to be 2.0? It's not any bigger than the other updates!"
I mean, Notch literally stated everywhere back during the Alpha to Beta transition that it wouldn't be a huge deal, and had the community been larger I bet there'd been the same size of uproar as the 1.9 combat changes had.
If players heard about 2.0, they would expect more than if it was called 1.10, which would just disappoint people.
You say you know how version numbers work, but then say that calling it 1.10 would be "being obstinate for the sake of your nerd pride". This leads me to wonder, do you know WHY version numbers work the way they do? We may use a "." in version numbers, and even say, "one point eight" and such, but it is NOT a decimal point. Version 1.8 is NOT "version one and eight tenths". Rather, it's "major version one, minor version eight" (or some semblance thereof). It doesn't really matter what makes sense numerically, as we're not talking about a decimal number but a software version identifier.
You mention 2.0 looking better on packaging. That may be so, but it would also be rather misleading to label it 2.0 if it's not a major overhaul of the game. Maybe they WILL overhaul the game after 1.9, and call it 2.0 as a result, but to call it that just because you don't want to have version 1.10 would be false advertising.
Finally, how is having minor version numbers greater than 9 socially unacceptable? Many software companies which have long-running product lines do so, and I don't see people getting upset at them. Why would people suddenly get upset at Mojang for it?
"Most plans are critically flawed by their own logic. A failure at any step will ruin everything after it. That's just basic cause and effect. It's easy for a good plan to fall apart. Therefore, a plan that has no attachment to logic cannot be stopped. The success or failure of any given step will have no impact on the macro level."
-Red Mage, 8-Bit Theater
"90% of the Internet's statistics are made-up, and 7/8 of its quotes are misattributed."
-Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
And this is why I keep believing half of the threads here are just ruses. Pick a side of the fence and stick with it. You don't get both. Oh hey, didn't you make a thread about you hating negativity?
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Unofficial Suggestions Guide (2.0) - by Theriasis
Unofficial Critics Guide - by yoshi9048
What does this even mean?
If they called it 2.0 they would be lying. There is no rule or law stating that I'm not Santa Claus, that doesn't make it true.
When do the amount of minor updates become a single major one?
Never. You don't understand versions, do you?
People, please stay on-topic. This suggestion is for using 2.0 instead of 1.10 as the next version number after 1.9. It isn't for making jokes about version numbers.
- sunperp
- sunperp
This entire website explaining the concept behind semantic versions, along with this entire Wikipedia page would like to attest to that. 2.0 is literally representative of a major update, in more technical terms, when the update renders any derivative works that rely on the internal API and code-base such as plugins, addons, internal modular structures, and even the user's experience incompatible.
If Windows were to update, changing swaths of code internally rendering every single program for Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 8.1 and even 10 incompatible due to the fact that it moves away from Direct3D and uses a new renderer, or completely redesigns the internals of the OS to move away from an event-based system (I don't know why Microsoft would, but it could happen and hence I'm using it as an example), this makes the update worthy of an increment to the major version identifier. Likewise, if Mojang were to, say, rewrite the game under C++ and DirectX, rendering every single mod and even Mojang's own work completely incompatible and having to rewrite absolutely every single line of every single piece of derivative work again, that would be worthy of Minecraft 2.0. But Mojang won't do this because that'd be equivalent to shooting themselves in the foot and thinking they can still run a marathon afterwards, it'd effectively kill the game.
Getting back on topic, no support, the game uses the version structure it does now for several reasons. One of which being the ability to quickly get an idea of how big an update is. 1.2 -> 1.3 was a large update relative to say 1.6.2 -> 1.6.4. 1.9 -> 1.10 is not going to be anywhere near large enough to even consider jumping to 2.0. The second reason is industry standards and convention, using semantic versioning means everyone is on the same page and no confusion occurs. Everyone knows that 1.9 -> 1.10 isn't that big in the grand scheme of things, but 1.9 -> 2.0 would mean that players would assume it's a huge update simply for the gap between them, while developers know otherwise.
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
My Github page.
The entire Minecraft shader development community now has its own Discord server! Feel free to join and chat with all the developers!
If you took all the "minor" changes from 1.2 all the way to 1.9 and rolled them up, would that be minor or major? There has been an overhaul to the code. Just look at the changelog. It's not even the same game anymore. I mean the core mechanics are still there but it has changed SO much, that I think it deserves the 2.0 moniker. 1.4 to 1.5 added redstone. 1.6 to 1.7 was so major it changed the landscape (The Update that Changed the World). 1.8 added so many blocks I am still learning some of them. 1.9 is changing combat so vastly, I am going to have to relearn how to fight. How is none of this major to anybody?
And maybe if we were in version 1.2 right now, rolling up 1.3 through 1.9 and releasing it might be worth 2.0. But that isn't what is happening. We're going from 1.8 to 1.9. Versions don't work like that, what is 'minor', what is 'major' and what is a complete overhaul depends on what the update has added and changed on its own. 1.9 is a major update. We know it is. That's why it is 1.9 instead of 1.8.10. 2.0 would be reserved for a complete rewrite of the game. It would have to be a completely different game when you go in.
I'm guessing the version numbers you are familiar with are different to the ones Minecraft are using. In the IT company that makes you oh so educated in this matter, I'm guessing you just count up your versions version 1, version 2, version 3 and so on. Games don't work like that. The jump between version 1 and version 2 is a jump between one game and another.
No, because versioning is relative to the two versions in question. 1.2 -> 1.3 is not viable of 1.0 -> 2.0 because nothing was changed that completely broke compatibility for absolutely everything, certain mods and certain lines of code were untouched by the update. 1.5 -> 1.6 was even less damaging as it only affected how mods deal with packaging their assets, 1.6 -> 1.7 and 1.7 -> 1.8 are the exact same. It's no use saying "if you took them, would be be minor or major" as Mojang didn't roll them up, and that's the thing. Working out whether the current update is worthy of a minor or major increment is relative to the two versions in question, not the whole product's lifetime. You don't just go "well, 1.4.0 saw us rewrite a large portion of the API, therefore 1.7.0 should be 2.0!" That makes absolutely no sense.
You're thinking gameplay when versioning is based around development. In terms of versioining, Mojang doesn't care if they reverse all the controls around so nobody knows how to play anymore, that's not a major update, that's a minor update as it doesn't even cause any incompatibilities. Gameplay doesn't matter with versions, to a point. If the entire product changed within a single update, then yes, but you yourself said that these changes occurred over time, so therefore they don't matter.
Author of the Clarity, Serenity, Sapphire & Halcyon shader packs for Minecraft: Java Edition.
My Github page.
The entire Minecraft shader development community now has its own Discord server! Feel free to join and chat with all the developers!
No Support, Because 2.0 is a huge overhaul. 1.10 is just an normal update that fixes bugs. OFF-TOPIC:I would prefer naming the updates like 1.1.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.4.0, 1.5.0, 1.6.0, 1.7.0, 1.8.0, 1.9.0 and 1.10.0.
I don't pay in emeralds. I pay in diamonds. - Me on server
Nope and nope.
I don't think I've ever seen any other user in the world go berzerk over a version number as much as you. "It's not even the same game anymore". Yes, yes it is. A ton of new stuff doesn't mean "diff3rent game!!"
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Unofficial Suggestions Guide (2.0) - by Theriasis
Unofficial Critics Guide - by yoshi9048
I know I am going to receive hate for this but 2.0 actually makes sense compared to 1.10. if you have ever seen how decimal numbers work, 1.10 would be like saying 1.1. Why? Because the 0 on the end of the 1 just is adding another decimal place (100ths). It is not making a change, most people who know a thing or two about math might think it means 1.1. It's the same with version numbers. Most programs use 2.0 after 1.9. Minecraft is the first program I have ever seen that is going to use this, so it would make more sense just to use 2.0.
Support.
Dinnerbone has already said it would be 1.10. Also, I don't think the majority of players are children. Besides that, I think they are more concerned with the gameplay and not the version number.
It rhymes with braille, not drool.
1 is the game number.
10 is the version number.
Numbers after 10 are bug fixes (I.E. 1.8.9)
It doesn't follow the rules of decimals because it isn't a decimal. Numbers with decimals only have one - yet you were okay with 1.8.9? And now 1.10 is too much for you? Please.
Edit: You are also very wrong about programs using 2.0 after 1.9. 2.0 is a new program, with all new coding. Think about Microsoft Word 2010, Microsoft 2013. New programs updates TO them are versions and bug fixes.
It rhymes with braille, not drool.